Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The case of the complainant Sunilkumar Nair is that after his Master’s degree in Loyola College, Madras, he wanted to pursue his studies in the United States of America and he secured admission in SOM (School of Organisation and Management) Yale University. On his way to United States by flight on 25.8.93 at the Madras International Airport, while the complainant was waiting for his luggage to be scanned, a heavy iron rod fell from the conveyor belt on his right foot and he was seriously injured. He could not walk even an inch and the Airport Doctor Mr. Badrinaryanan attended on him and he was taken to the aircraft in a wheelchair. Even though he had sustained serious injuries, he had to j proceed lest he would lose his admission for which he had worked hard. The Doctor at the Airport advised the complainant to check-up either in Bombay or New York Airport. At the Bombay Airport, the Medical Officer there, examined the complainant and prescribed medicines and advised X-ray and review. Since the time left for boarding was short nothing could be done in Bombay. In the meanwhile, the complainant’s father had requested the 2nd opposite party Regional Manager, Air India, Madras to see that necessary medical assistance is given to the complainant at New York Airport so that the complainant would be able to report to Yale University on the stipulated date. The complainant’s father was assured that necessary message would be sent to New York to that effect, but nobody took care of the complainant at the New York Airport. Therefore, with great difficulty the complainant proceeded further to New Haven, Connecticut. Throughout his journey, he was suffering from pain. As soon as he reached Yale University the complainant consulted a Doctor there and the injury was diagnosed as distal phalax fracture of the right second toe. The complainant had to undergo continuous treatment and had to walk with the support of a stick for weeks together. Because of the injury, he could not take up any assistantship which is common in all Universities in U.S.A. since education is very expensive there. But for the injury, the complainant would have been entitled to assistantship. Without assistantship, the complainant was put to great embarrassment and sustained monetary loss. The further case of the complainant is that it was solely due to the negligence of the 1st opposite party International Airport Authority of India, the injury had happened to him. The 2nd opposite party had hired the services and amenities of the 1st opposite party and is equally responsible. The negligence of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and therefore both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Inspite of demand for compensation, the opposite parties have not come forward with a favourable reply. On these grounds, the complaint has been filed for compensation of Rs. 3,72,000/- for losing assistantship and Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical pain and mental agony, totalling to Rs. 5,72,000/-.

2. The two opposite parties have filed separate written versions opposing the complaint. The 1st opposite party International Airport Authority of India contended that since no consideration is paid by the complainant to this opposite party, there is no consumer relationship between them and hence the complaint against the 1st opposite party is not maintainable. It is further contended that the x-ray baggage scanning machine in question has been provided by the 2nd opposite party-Air India and therefore only they are responsible for the incident, and no negligence can be attributed to this opposite party. It is therefore seen that this 1st opposite party has been unnecessarily implicated in the case. It is further contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the General Insurance Company with which the 1st opposite party - International Airport Authority is had